🛈 Announcement
Greetings! Assassin's Creed forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game.
  1. #1

    A critique on Assassin's Creed Odyssey(a year and a half later)

    I finally decided to do it. Unload all my thoughts about the latest "Assassin's Creed" game in the franchise. This might get downvoted to hell, but I don't care. It's time.

    Now, this is my opinion, of course. If you love this game, good for you. Have fun. Don't be a **** about it in the comments. I'll try to do the same here, but I will be blunt when I need to be.

    Let me just say first that Assassin's Creed Odyssey does not deserve the title of Assassin's Creed anywhere near it. It spits on what came before in the lore and the way AC stories have been told. It shreds any hope of the franchise coming back to its former glory in the days of the original, the Ezio trilogy, and Black Flag and it squanders everything Origins tried to do and was a poor man's version of its predecessor. That's a broad statement, so let me explain.

    From the minute you start Assassin's Creed Odyssey, something is wrong. You pick off a year after Origins's modern day, with Layla finding some broken spear whose importance is given to you by a wave of exposition. You want to find the wielder of the spear and you find two sets of DNA on it, that of a man called Alexios, and a woman named Kassandra. You choose whose DNA you want to follow and you're put into the Animus. But this makes no sense.

    Now, I get why the implemented this. They wanted to let you choose your gender, but they shoehorned into the lore and it just didn't work. From what I remember, they didn't do a good job of explaining the importance of the spear. We know it's a Piece of Eden, but from what I can remember, it's never directly stated. The pyramid thing that the Cult uses in the game is seemingly a Piece as well, but is never explained. It feels as though the lore is just making a ****ty cameo at best, and has been ignored at worst.

    This is compounded by the presence of the Leap of Faith. I understand why this was implemented for gameplay purposes and the team needed the Leap of Faith in the game because all AC games need it. But it was given significance in Origins with Bayek and the son who died before the leap could be passed down. But it just happens to be done by some rando in ancient Greece long before Bayek was even around. It takes away the impact of the Leap of Faith and makes it feel less important to the story and the Assassins https://100001.onl/ https://1921681254.mx/ .

    Speaking of the Assassins, there are none in this game. "Well that's because this took place before they were around" I hear you type. But that's a problem. How is it an Assassin's Creed game if both parts of the title are absent? It's simply not. It's similar in concept, with someone hunting down a bunch of evil people, but that's about it. That's not the most original storyline in the world, which I don't mean as an insult to the franchise. I simply mean that the presence of that alone does not an AC game make. Sure you act like an assassin. But you're not one. At least not a capital "A" Assassin. So why bother? I know why. Ubisoft wanted to make more money, so they slapped "Assassin's Creed" on the title of what was going to be its own IP or a side story game, rather than a main entry.

    Having nothing to do with the rest of the franchise takes away a lot of the weight of the story. AC1-Revelations tied the modern day with its history, closely knitting the characters and the plot together. Hell, even AC3's modern day and historical plotlines had some connection with one another. Even when the modern day fell to the wayside, the historical stories had some connection to each other.Not so with Odyssey. It's just there. It adds no impact to anything at all.

    Now let's compare it to Origins, shall we? Origins had beautiful graphics, a great story and protagonist, and gave us the origin of the Brotherhood. A more shallow one than most of us would have liked(which is where a sequel instead of this game would have done better), but one nonetheless. Odyssey had...what? An average at best story, a flat protagonist, a less interesting world, and somehow worse graphics, particularly on the faces. They looked almost plastic. Compare it to two other games that came out that year. Red Dead Redemption 2 and Detroit Become Human. Both are stellar looking games that look almost real. You can count the pores in RDR2 and sometimes in DBH as well. Odyssey dips a foot or two into the uncanny valley more than once, giving an almost real look, but not quite.

    I won't go into the RPG and game mechanics too much. My main issue is that your choices don't matter. You get one of I think three endings and they are very similar based on only a couple choices about whether to kill a family member or not. The rest don't. You can be nice one day, mean another, and a genocidal maniac the next and none of it matters. You're still the hero, no matter what. The tagline to this game was "It's not any Odyssey, it's your Odyssey". But if my choices don't matter, than how is it my Odyssey? It's not. Remember Halo 5? Remember how people freaked out when they played the campaign and discovered the marketing was a lie? Why didn't this game, whose tagline is just a big a lie as that, get the game reaction?

    Odyssey feels like change just for the sake of change, rather than improving on what many would say was becoming stale. People defend this game because it changed the franchise, but not all change is good. Losing an arm is change, but if you tried to claim that it was good, I guarantee you that you would get slapped by an amputee's only arm left. A dramatic comparison? Sure, but it gets my point across.

    Sorry for the long post. I haven't covered everything there is to cover, just because that would take far too long, but thanks for reading. I don't want to ruin anyone's enjoyment of this game, but I want to end by saying if you consider yourself an AC fan and this is your favorite, you may want to reconsider what being an AC fan means. If you don't care about the lore or being an Assassin, you're just a follower.
    Share this post

  2. #2
    I consider myself an AC fan and you have absolutely no say what so ever in defining whether or not I can be one ......

    You tell people not to be an **** about your comments and then epitomize one in your last paragraph saying I can't be an AC fan if I like Odyssey because you don't like it

    Screw you and the Phobos you rode in on
     3 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Olympus2018's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    4,598
    Interesting posts.... IF Odyssey was so bad, there wouldn't be AC fans who have spent 1000 or 2000 hours or more time.... on Odyssey!
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  4. #4
    As he said, is his opinion. And in some things i agree. Not all, but some. Is opinion is valid.
    I do wish there would be more key features from the AC legacy. Origins did have more than Odyssey. But damn, i am a sucker for the sea battles, NGL.
    Haven't tried Valhalla just yet. But will wait until it gets completed and fixed before i step in it. Odyssey was a nice game, but as the OP, i felt disapointed with the lower quality.
    Also, a reminder. More hours spent ingame doesn't necessarily means more fun or constant fun. You have to admit Odyssey was very,very grindy for at least the first half, then for resources at the end. Plus mogs.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Let me just say first that Assassin's Creed Odyssey does not deserve the title of Assassin's Creed anywhere near it (..)
    Only because you can't really assassinate anyone with the weak backstab. I hear Ubi brought proper assassinations back in Valhalla, though, so all is well.

    From the minute you start Assassin's Creed Odyssey, something is wrong. You pick off a year after Origins's modern day, with Layla finding some broken spear whose importance is given to you by a wave of exposition. You want to find the wielder of the spear and you find two sets of DNA on it, that of a man called Alexios, and a woman named Kassandra. You choose whose DNA you want to follow and you're put into the Animus. But this makes no sense.
    I never pay attention to the modern-day stuff, so I guess it's fine by me. I don't see why the two sets of DNA make no sense, though.

    Now let's compare it to Origins, shall we? Origins had beautiful graphics, a great story and protagonist, and gave us the origin of the Brotherhood. A more shallow one than most of us would have liked(which is where a sequel instead of this game would have done better), but one nonetheless. Odyssey had...what? An average at best story, a flat protagonist, a less interesting world, and somehow worse graphics, particularly on the faces. They looked almost plastic.
    Origins was, in my opinion, the better game. However, Odyssey's graphics are much better than Origins'. I like Kassandra just fine, but she does feel a little flat (from what I read Alexios is worse, so playing Kassandra). Bayek was just so human. Likeable. He had emotions, motivations, weaknesses. Thus far, Kassandra seems to be... yes. Flat.


    Odyssey feels like change just for the sake of change, rather than improving on what many would say was becoming stale. People defend this game because it changed the franchise, but not all change is good. Losing an arm is change, but if you tried to claim that it was good, I guarantee you that you would get slapped by an amputee's only arm left. A dramatic comparison? Sure, but it gets my point across.
    Er... ok.

    (..) I want to end by saying if you consider yourself an AC fan and this is your favorite, you may want to reconsider what being an AC fan means. If you don't care about the lore or being an Assassin, you're just a follower.
    I am not an AC fan(boi). I like the games, have played most of them. I really don't care about the lore. I liked Ezio for his own sake, I didn't care for the whole Templar blah blah. The little stories is what enchants me. Bayek the Great Flea. Ezio's pain. Freeing slaves in the Caribbean, the relationship of siblings. Your mileage may vary.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by Ladeantos Go to original post
    As he said, is his opinion. And in some things i agree. Not all, but some. Is opinion is valid.
    I do wish there would be more key features from the AC legacy. Origins did have more than Odyssey. But damn, i am a sucker for the sea battles, NGL.
    Haven't tried Valhalla just yet. But will wait until it gets completed and fixed before i step in it. Odyssey was a nice game, but as the OP, i felt disapointed with the lower quality.
    Also, a reminder. More hours spent ingame doesn't necessarily means more fun or constant fun. You have to admit Odyssey was very,very grindy for at least the first half, then for resources at the end. Plus mogs.
    Yea, it's not a good sign that I'm 10-15 hours in and I'm already skipping any content that isn't main quest or interesting side-quest. Forts, conquests, help this person, go into that cave blah blah blah. I think I'll finish the main story, wander the world and explore some secrets and then uninstall. A pity.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Sh5bindo Go to original post
    Only because you can't really assassinate anyone with the weak backstab. I hear Ubi brought proper assassinations back in Valhalla, though, so all is well.



    I never pay attention to the modern-day stuff, so I guess it's fine by me. I don't see why the two sets of DNA make no sense, though.



    Origins was, in my opinion, the better game. However, Odyssey's graphics are much better than Origins'. I like Kassandra just fine, but she does feel a little flat (from what I read Alexios is worse, so playing Kassandra). Bayek was just so human. Likeable. He had emotions, motivations, weaknesses. Thus far, Kassandra seems to be... yes. Flat.




    Er... ok.



    I am not an AC fan(boi). I like the games, have played most of them. I really don't care about the lore. I liked Ezio for his own sake, I didn't care for the whole Templar blah blah. The little stories is what enchants me. Bayek the Great Flea. Ezio's pain. Freeing slaves in the Caribbean, the relationship of siblings. Your mileage may vary.
    Actually assassinations are harder in Valhalla because they group up all the NPCs so there is no good way to take them out one at a time .... You take out one and 2 or 3 others are going to jump right on you ..... At least that was my experience trying to do stealth in a couple of monastery raid missions

    Assassinations in Odyssey aren't that hard **if** you build your character as a proper assassin .... For instance here I am using an Epic Hunter build with some secondary Assassin engravings on my gear and I could assassinate every person in this fort except the polemarch and I'm not using anything other than basic Assassination and Crit Assassination skills and not any of the more powerful advanced assassin skills .....



    Here's a similar but weaker Hunter/assassin hybrid build doing an "Athens Wall Run" which is a great way to gather loot, level up your 'adrenaline on assassination" engraving and practice running assassinations which are way cooler than just dropping down and insta-killing someone from above .....



    Here's a couple of photos of running assassinations

    Going in



    And coming out



    I'll take the Spear of Leonidas over a Hidden Blade any day ........ The animations were just way better especially those lame "internal" animations in Valhalla which are just stupid and juvenile IMO .... I turned them off not because I thought there were gross but because I thought they were just dumb and take you out of the moment .... They just seem pointless to me
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Odyssey was a good game once I reached max level, before that it felt too grindy. I am glad they ditched the level scaling for Valhalla.
    Share this post